In areas where body cameras have already been deployed, the response has been positive from both the officers and the communities they police.

“I don’t know if you could find one officer who would want to go back to not having body cameras,” Cmdr. Chris Peters, who designed the Parker, Colo., body camera program, told The Daily Signal. As also reported in The Daily Signal’s examination of the issue, the city of Rialto, Calif., has released data on their implementation that show that, “when officers began using body cameras, use of force by police dropped 59 percent, and citizen complaints against them fell 87 percent.”

In anticipation of the deployment of the cameras in Atlanta in the near future, City Council member Kwanza Hall was optimistic: “With the proper protocols, training and levels of transparency, we can make this a win, win, win … [a]nd it also gives our officers the grounds to protect their integrity. I am thankful that the ball is rolling.”

]]>http://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/08/atlanta-police-force-track-get-body-cameras/feed/2Does More Money Improve Outcomes?http://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/05/money-improve-outcomes/
http://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/05/money-improve-outcomes/#respondWed, 11 May 2016 21:33:06 +0000http://www.georgiapolicy.org/?p=17627Fifty years ago, James S. Coleman published a groundbreaking education report that many call the fountainhead for those committed to […]

Fifty years ago, James S. Coleman published a groundbreaking education report that many call the fountainhead for those committed to evidence-based education policy. Among other things, Coleman found that variations in per-pupil expenditure had little correlation with student outcomes.

Even to this day, there remains the simple question as to whether, other things equal, just adding more money to schools will systematically lead to higher achievement. Figure 2 shows the overall record of states during the past quarter century. Changes in real state spending per pupil are uncorrelated with changes in 4th-grade student achievement in reading. Similar results are obtained in math and in both math and reading at the 8th-grade level. Clearly, states have changed in many other ways than just expenditure, but there is no reason to conclude from these data that just providing money will by itself boost student achievement.

There now appears to be a general consensus that how money is spent is much more important than how much is spent. In other words, the research does not show that money never matters or that money cannot matter. But, just providing more funds to a typical school district without any change in incentives and operating rules is unlikely to lead to systematic improvements in student outcomes. That is what Coleman found, and that is what recent research says.

Below are some excerpts that are relevant to Georgia governments in making sensible choices among transit modes. This highlight sums up his viewpoint: “The value for money proposition should deliver the best outcome for society regardless of whether it is rail or bus based, in their light and heavy configuration.”

Almost weekly, we see proposals to build light rail in many cities, and Australian cities are no exception. It is also quite marked how absent any serious consideration of bus rapid transit (BRT) as an alternative is. The old chestnut of emotional ideology is resurfacing as part of the ongoing debate on choice vs. blind commitment (Hensher & Waters, 1994; Hensher, 2007). … What is the logic? It seems to start with the assumption that trains are sexy and buses are boring, and that light rail offers a much better value for money than BRT.

However, in almost all cases, where there has been a detailed benefit-cost analysis of light rail, there appears to be an almost token gesture to consider, but reject, BRT. The value for money proposition should deliver the best outcome for society regardless of whether it is rail or bus based, in their light and heavy configuration.

The question on which is better, less expensive, etc. must depend on the unique city characteristics (demand mainly) and choice of Right of Way, but must at least be put to the test rather than ignored or effectively sidestepped by a very light assessment and rejection. …

Despite the plea for a rational debate on the role of alternative PT modes, to ensure that the service levels offered represent best value for money and deliver on key criteria such as connectivity, frequency and visibility within a network, there is often great resistance to some options on essentially ideological and emotional grounds. There is a strong sense of imagery conditioning modal preferences for LRT without a full appreciation of the equivalent or better benefits that might flow from the frequently less-favored BRT (Hensher, Ho, & Mulley, 2015).

Part of the problem may appear to be a perception that any PT option associated with the word ‘bus’ … conjures up images of noisy polluting buses in mixed traffic congestion; yet BRT can, if designed appropriately to serve the market with relevance (just as LRT should), deliver a service that is equivalent or better than LRT and/or heavy rail where the evidence can show a clear and strong case of delivering relevant service levels (with a focus on service capacity and not vehicle capacity), with built-in growth prospects, that competes very favorably with the cost outlays of rail solutions. …

Too often, policy-makers pushed by politicians and the media, commission studies that pre-select the modal solution (which is increasingly rail) and reject without evidence the possibility that another option such as BRT might provide considerably a better value for money given an appropriate level of service, in terms of frequency, connectivity and travel times. …

In terms of evidence on service capacity, Brisbane’s BRT system runs 200 buses per hour carrying 9000 persons per hour (pph) at the peak load point, although one corridor has achieved over 14 000 passenger trips in the peak, while Ottawa’s BRT carries 10 000 pph at the peak load point. Pittsburgh has been running 96 buses per hour at the peak load point on the east busway. The associated passenger volume is 3700 pph. Available data show that BRT operating on an exclusive lane has a demonstrated one way capacity of 25 000 pph and a theoretical capacity well above 50 000 pph (although close to this has been achieved in Bogota).

There is growing evidence around the world, in origin–destination density contexts similar to locations proposed for light rail, that a dedicated BRT system (i.e. road infrastructure dedicated to buses only like in Brisbane, Curitiba, Bogota, Pittsburgh, Ottawa, etc.) can carry the same number of people as light rail for one-third of the cost. It is flexible, it is as permanent as light rail, and it can have the image of light rail (rather than image of boring buses) if planned properly. The USA General Accounting Office (2001) audit of BRT and light rail in six US cities found that the capital cost per mile for LRT compared to BRT in its own lane was 260% more costly. Comparisons with BRT on street or on a high occupancy vehicle lanes are not useful and have been excluded. Given the lower costs of running BRT in many jurisdictions, for institutional and maintenance reasons, the case to not even consider BRT is unacceptable. …

In summary, buses, especially bus-based transitway systems are arguably better value for money, and if designed properly, can have the essential characteristic of permanence and visibility claimed to be important to attract property development along the route which is compatible with medium to high-density corridor mobility. To achieve this, however, the bus industry in many countries needs a ‘wake-up’ call. All I ask is that bus-based and rail-based systems are treated equally in an assessment of their merits, rather than judged on some pretext that is shrouded in emotion and modal bias.

The most climate-friendly reliable source of power is nuclear energy, yet environmental activists largely campaign against nuclear. Michael Shellenberger shares the fascinating history and motives of activists’ opposition in, “CLEAN ENERGY IS ON THE DECLINE — HERE’S WHY, AND WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT,” in Public Utilities Fortnightly.

Shellenberger writes:

Utilities that own nuclear power plants are in serious financial trouble. While it is tempting to blame low natural gas prices and misplaced post-Fukushima jitters, nuclear’s troubles are rooted in regulatory capture — a capture that finds its genesis in the origins of the U.S. environmental movement. This capture is now threatening to bring this climate-friendly energy source to the brink. …

How then did environmentalists come to view nuclear as bad for the environment?

Starting in the mid-sixties, a handful of Sierra Club activists feared rising migration into California would destroy the state’s scenic character. They decided to attack all sources of cheap, reliable power, not just nuclear, in order to slow economic growth.

“If a doubling of the state’s population in the next 20 years is to be encouraged by providing the power resources for this growth,” wrote David Brower, who was Executive Director of the Sierra Club, “the state’s scenic character will be destroyed. More power plants create more industry, that in turn invites greater population density.”

A Sierra Club activist named Martin Litton, a pilot and nature photographer for Sunset magazine, led the campaign to oppose Diablo Canyon, a nuclear site Pacific Gas and Electric proposed to build on the central Californian coast in 1965. Sierra Club member “Martin Litton hated people,” wrote a historian about the how the environmental movement turned against nuclear. “He favored a drastic reduction in population to halt encroachment on park land.”

But anti-nuclear activists had a problem: their anti-growth message was deeply unpopular with the Californian people. And so they quickly changed their strategy. They worked hard instead to scare the public by preying on their ignorance.

Doris Sloan, an anti-nuclear activist in northern California said, “If you’re trying to get people aroused about what is going on … you use the most emotional issue you can find.” This included publicizing images of victims of Hiroshima and photos of babies born with birth defects. Millions were convinced a nuclear meltdown was the same as a nuclear bomb.

This article appeared in Insider Advantage on April 8, 2016 and is reprinted with permission.

Financial Technology Continues to Grow in Georgia

By Bill Armistead

While most Georgians are familiar with industry leaders like Coca Cola, UPS, Delta, Home Depot, Aflac and Southern Company, the rapid-growth sector to watch is financial technology — with names like First Data, NCR, Elavon, TSYS, SunTrust, and WorldPay.

Every year, Georgia’s growing Financial Technology (FinTech) industry is moving closer to surpassing New York and California as the nation’s most active tech centers for electronic transactions.

The Technology Association of Georgia cites the independent Nilson Report showing that there were over 135 billion payment card transactions in 2011, representing about $2.3 trillion in total consumer and commercial purchases. Over 85 billion, or nearly two-thirds of these transactions, passed through the global networks of Georgia FinTech organizations.

One look at a map of Georgia’s financial tech sector shows why it is being called “Transaction Alley” by the industry.

Georgia’s political leaders have begun to recognize the growing clout of Georgia’s FinTech industry as well. Senator Johnny Isakson has co-founded the bipartisan Senate Payments Innovation Caucus, and freshman Senator David Perdue has taken a leading role in fighting back a relentless effort by the Obama Administration to regulate the industry. And in the House of Representatives, Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA-03) and David Scott (D-GA-13) co-founded the Congressional Payments Technology Caucus.

Georgia’s share of this economic impact from 2004 to 2014 amounts to an increase of $12.3 billion to the state’s gross product and over 161,000 permanent jobs.

The combined effects of Georgia’s increased economic activity and the 30,000 direct FinTech jobs in the state totals nearly 200,000 jobs.

Leadership in this sector is increasingly relevant to the growing globalization of the economy. Internet retail transactions represent one of the strongest economic growth sectors, placing Georgia’s FinTech industry at the heart of that global economic growth.

In its latest analysis, Juniper Research predicts a 20 percent increase in the value of mobile, contactless and online payments this year, rising from $3 trillion in 2015 to $3.6 trillion in 2016.

With Georgia’s FinTech sector leading the technologies that make that kind of growth possible, it’s no wonder that talent, venture capital and companies currently headquartered outside the state are casting their eyes toward Georgia.

Bill Armistead is with Master Your Card, Georgia, a public education and financial empowerment project of MasterCard.

]]>http://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/04/financial-technology-continues-grow-georgia/feed/0Direct Care Resourceshttp://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/02/direct-care-resources/
http://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/02/direct-care-resources/#respondTue, 09 Feb 2016 23:13:30 +0000http://georgiapolicy.org/?p=16811As the General Assembly debates the merits of direct care arrangements, here are some resources for those who want more […]

As the General Assembly debates the merits of direct care arrangements, here are some resources for those who want more information on this subject:

Direct Primary Care (DPC) Puts Patients Back in the Driver’s Seat

Empowering the relationship between doctors and patients is the key to achieving superior health outcomes, lower costs and an enhanced patient experience. DPC fosters this relationship by focusing on five key tenets:

Service: The hallmark of DPC is adequate time spent between patient and physician, creating an enduring doctor-patient relationship.

Patient Choice: Patients in DPC choose their own personal physician and are reactive partners in their healthcare.

Elimination of Fee-For-Service: DPC eliminates undesired fee-for-service(FFS) incentives in primary care. These incentives distort healthcare decision-making by rewarding volume over value. This undermines the trust that supports the patient-provider relationship and rewards expensive and inappropriate testing, referral and treatment.

Advocacy: DPC providers are committed advocates for patients within the healthcare system. They have time to make informed, appropriate referrals and support patient needs when they are outside of primary care.

Stewardship: DPC providers believe that healthcare must provide more value to the patient and the system. Healthcare can, and must, be higher performing, more patient-responsive, less invasive, and less expensive than it is today. The ultimate goal is health and well being, not simply the treatment of disease.

How “DPC” Works:

DPC practices have extended hours, ready access to urgent care and patient panel sizes small enough to support a commitment to greater long-term care and service.

DPC patients have the right to transparent pricing, access and availability of all services provided. Empowered by accurate information at the point of care, patients are fully involved in making their own medical and financial choices.

DPC providers accept the responsibility to be available to patients, serving as patient guides. No matter where patients are in the system, physicians provide them with information about the quality, cost, and patient experience of care.

Dr. Lee Gross of the Docs4Patient Care Foundation discusses how direct primary care gave his clients a better option and likely saved his primary care practice near Sarasota, Florida at a 2014 Luncheon Briefing.

]]>http://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/02/direct-care-resources/feed/0School Choice Benefits: More than test scoreshttp://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/02/school-choice-benefits-more-than-test-scores/
http://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/02/school-choice-benefits-more-than-test-scores/#commentsTue, 09 Feb 2016 14:12:29 +0000http://georgiapolicy.org/?p=16807Research focused solely on standardized test scores will understate the benefits of school choice programs, since effects on high school graduation and college enrollment are stronger—especially among urban minority students.

]]>Hundreds of school children braved chilly temperatures to attend the National School Choice Week rally at the Georgia State Capitol in Atlanta

In a new article for Education Next, Martin R. West of Harvard University explains that research focused solely on standardized test scores will understate the benefits of school choice programs, since effects on high school graduation and college enrollment are stronger—especially among urban minority students.

The study builds on early research on school choice by James S. Coleman:

The chief beneficiaries of policies that expand parental choice appear to be urban minority students—precisely the group that Coleman argued has the least choice in a public school system in which school assignment depends on where a family lives. And the benefits of school choice for these students extend beyond what tests can measure.

A key paragraph at the conclusion of the article raises questions about overreliance on test scores to evaluate school choice programs:

Policymakers continue to wrestle with the question of how best to regulate systems of school choice. In recent years, charter school authorizers in some cities have taken on a more active role in managing the options available to families—closing some charter schools and allowing others to expand, using student test results as the primary yardstick of success. Meanwhile, some states have required private schools accepting voucher students to participate in state testing systems, blurring what had been a distinction between the two approaches. These efforts aim to produce more consistent quality among both charter and private schools and to equip parents with information to make sound decisions regarding their child’s schooling. Yet such measures, when used to limit the options available to families, assume that overall test score results at a particular school can accurately indicate the long-term benefits for an individual child of attending that school. Increasingly, researchers are casting doubt on that assumption.

]]>http://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/02/school-choice-benefits-more-than-test-scores/feed/12016 Recommendations from the Criminal Justice Reform Councilhttp://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/02/2016-recommendations-from-the-criminal-justice-reform-council/
http://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/02/2016-recommendations-from-the-criminal-justice-reform-council/#commentsSat, 06 Feb 2016 15:36:32 +0000http://georgiapolicy.org/?p=16799The Georgia Council on Criminal Justice Reform has released its 2016 Report, which provides a summary of progress to date […]

The Georgia Council on Criminal Justice Reform has released its 2016 Report, which provides a summary of progress to date and a list of recommendations. Below are excerpts from the report’s executive summary.

It is often said that the states are our laboratories of democracy. With criminal justice reform, this is undeniably true. Over the past decade, more than two dozen states have enacted significant reforms to their sentencing and correctional systems, changes that have improved public safety while holding offenders accountable and reducing taxpayer costs. Unlike so many policy issues in America today, criminal justice reform has been embraced with overwhelming bipartisan support. As 2016 begins, Congress and President Obama are acknowledging the substantial progress unfolding in the states and taking steps to apply similar solutions to the struggling federal corrections system.

Georgia has been at the forefront of this movement. During the past five years, Governor Nathan Deal and the General Assembly have adopted a series of transformative sentencing and correctional improvements with vigorous support from across the political spectrum. The Georgia Council on Criminal Justice Reform has been honored to help guide this effort. …

The Council’s first phase of work followed a period of unprecedented growth in Georgia’s prison system. Between 1990 and 2011, the adult prison population more than doubled to nearly 56,000 inmates. State spending on corrections soared right along with that growth, rising from $492 million to more than $1 billion annually. As 2011 began, Georgia’s incarceration rate – 1 in 70 adults behind bars – was the fourth highest in the nation, and another 8 percent jump in the inmate population was predicted over the next five years. Meanwhile, the state’s recidivism rate had hovered at roughly 30% for a decade, suggesting that Georgia’s heavy reliance on imprisonment was, at best, producing marginal public safety benefits.

In its first year, the Council produced a set of policy recommendations that prioritized prison beds for violent, career criminals while expanding probation, drug and mental health courts and other sentencing alternatives for those convicted of less serious crimes. …

The Council’s next target was Georgia’s troubled juvenile justice system, which was plauged by high costs and disappointing results. After an extensive review, the Council concluded that too many low-level youth were being placed in out-of-home facilities, in part because there were few community-based sentencing options in many parts of the state. Despite a budget exceeding $300 million annually, Georgia’s juvenile justice approach was doing litle to help troubled youth turn around their lives. More than half the youth in the system were re-adjudicated delinquent or convicted of a criminal offense within three years of release, a rate that had held steady since 2003. For those released from secure youth development campuses, the recidivism rate was even higher – a disturbing 65 percent.

Seeking to reduce juvenile reoffending and control costs, the Council produced a package of policy recommendations designed to divert more lower level offenders into evidence-based community programs with a proven track record. …

The centerpiece of the Council’s work in 2014 was the state’s third leg of criminal justice reform, the Georgia Prisoner Reentry Initiative (GA-PRI). Approved by the Council at the end of 2013, the GA-PRI has two primary objectives: to improve public safety by reducing crimes committed by former offenders, thereby reducing the number of crime victims, and secondly, to boost success rates of Georgians leaving prison by providing them with a seamless plan of services and supervision, beginning at the time of their incarceration and continuing through their reintegration in the community. Backed by significant grant support and a total of $60 million in state and federal funding, Georgia’s investment in reentry is unmatched anywhere in the United States.

Promising Results

As the Council enters its sixth year of work, there is mounting evidence that the reforms enacted to date are improving the effectiveness of Georgia’s criminal justice system and producing benefits for taxpayers as well as offenders and their families. On the adult side, one key indicator is the continuing decline of Georgia’s prison population, which stood at 51,822 at the end of 2015 – down from a peak of 54,895 in July, 2012.

Annual commitments to prison have dropped substantially as well. In 2015, Georgia recorded 18,139 commitments, the lowest number since 2002 and down from a peak of 21,655 in 2009. These downward trends stand in stark contrast to earlier projections for system growth. Prior to passage of the adult reforms, Georgia’s inmate population was expected to increase by 8 percent over the next five years. Had the state followed that trajectory, its already overcrowded system would have swelled to 60,000 inmates, requiring the state to spend an additional $264 million to expand capacity.

“Georgia is a real, genuine success story. What they do really makes a difference and will be looked at by other states and other conservatives across the nation.” Vikrant Reddy, Senior Policy Analyst, Right on Crime, The New Republic, March 31, 2015

Georgia is also making progress on reserving its most expensive correctional sanction – prison – for its most serious offenders while strengthening accountability courts and other alternative punishments for less serious lawbreakers. At the start of 2016, the proportion of violent and sex offenders in prison stood at 67 percent, up from 58 percent in January 2009.

Because of state appropriations to expand and strengthen accountability courts, as well as state-funded incentives to create new ones, Georgia now has 131 such courts operating in the state. Indeed, only two judicial circuits lack an accountability court, and both are in the early stages of starting one. In addition to existing participants, during last year alone nearly 3,500 new participants were added to an accountability court program.

On another front, Georgia has dramatically reduced the backlog of state inmates housed in county jails and awaiting transfer to a prison or Probation Detention Center. In the past, the Georgia Department of Corrections spent more than $20 million annually to keep state inmates in local jails pending their transfer to prison. In FY2015, state spending on such subsidies was just $5,760, freeing up funds for reinvestment in a variety of other initiatives.

Within the juvenile system, progress has been particularly encouraging. Since 2013, Georgia has decreased its population of youth in secure confinement by 17 percent and reduced the number of youth awaiting placement by 51 percent. During that same timeframe, overall juvenile commitments to the Department of Juvenile Justice have dropped 33 percent, demonstrating that more youths’ needs are being met in the community. Indeed, every judicial circuit in Georgia now has access to an evidencebased intervention for juveniles as the state has steadily increased the availability of programs proven to reduce juvenile recidivism. …

2016 Adults System Recommendations

While phasing in Georgia’s landmark reentry initiative remained a priority for the Council this year, members also made headway on many other significant challenges.

Fortifying the First Offender Act

Known as Georgia’s “second chance law,” the First Offender Act was enacted in 1968 to allow certain first-time offenders to avoid both a conviction and a public record if they successfully complete their court sentence. The law also protects these individuals from employment discrimination on the basis of their charge. Its intent is to give some firsttime offenders a chance to learn from their mistake and move on with their lives without the burden of a conviction. People charged with a DUI or a serious violent or sexual felony are not eligible.

In 2014, the Council made three recommendations to ensure eligible offenders receive protections they are entitled to under the law, all of which were adopted by the General Assembly in the 2015 legislative session. One of the recommendations was embodied in HB 310, which required that all Georgians who qualify for a second chance under the Act be informed of their eligibility. The new law also allows those who were not informed of their eligibility to petition a court for retroactive first offender treatment with the consent of the prosecuting attorney’s office.

This year, the Council makes several additional recommendations related to the Act, many of them related to the confidentiality of records and creating protections from employment discrimination. The Council concluded that such changes are needed because the methods used to prevent first offenders from having a public record have been outpaced by technology and the expansion of the private background investigation industry. Also, despite the law prohibiting employment discrimination, some employers continue to use successful first offender cases to deny employment. Throughout our deliberations on this issue, the Council strived to strike the appropriate balance between the public’s and employers’ rights to know and giving first offenders the intended protection of the law.

Lifting the Food Stamps Ban for Felony Drug Offenders

In 1996, Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PWORA), which included a federal lifetime ban on food stamps for those with felony drug convictions. The ban amounts to a lifetime of punishment, and although it does not target particular demographic groups, various social and criminal justice dynamics have caused the ban to have a disproportionate effect on women, children and African-Americans. States can “opt out” and exempt residents from the lifetime ban completely, or enact a less punitive version, and the vast majority of states have chosen one of those options. Georgia is one of only three states that have maintained the ban in its entirety.

Data compiled by the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute show that because of the ban, Georgia is missing out on $10.4 million in federal food stamp benefits each year. Approximately 555 otherwise eligible Georgians are denied food stamps each month because of a drug felony. This number translates to about 6,665 people per year, not including those individuals discouraged from seeking benefits. About 1,850 children are included in these denied benefits each year. Among individuals denied benefits, many were not users, but rather sold drugs to provide income for their families.

After a careful review of the issue, the Council recommends that Georgia remove the lifetime ban on food stamps for felony drug offenders in its entirety. Doing so will not only bring millions of dollars of federal revenue to the state, but also remove a barrier to successful reentry, enabling Georgians who have completed their sentences to more easily move past their offense, become law-abiding citizens and provide for their families.

Misdemeanor Probation Reform

In 2014, the Council conducted an extensive review of Georgia’s misdemeanor probation system, which had been the subject of broad criticism in audits, in the media and by the courts. As a result of that review, the Council produced 12 recommendations to address deficiencies and improve transparency and fairness in misdemeanor probation supervision services.

Adding to that work in 2015, the Council developed additional recommendations to increase fairness in misdemeanor cases where it is alleged that the probationer has only failed to pay or failed to report. Specifically, the Council recommends the institution of affidavit requirements before probation officers may seek arrest warrants for failure to report in misdemeanor cases. In addition, the Council recommends requiring a hearing before a misdemeanor probationer may be arrested solely for failure to pay. The Council also recommends that for pay-only probationers, supervision should terminate automatically when all fines and statutory surcharges are paid in full. Individuals on payonly probation, and those serving consecutive misdemeanor sentences, should further be allowed to file a motion for early termination of probation supervision.

Other Adult Reforms

In addition to these adult system improvements, the Council also recommends that the General Assembly extend parole eligibility to an additional category of non-violent recidivist drug offenders; authorize in Georgia statute the creation of two additional accountability courts (a Family Dependency Treatment Court and an Operating Under the Influence Court, also known as DUI Court); extend “ban the box” protections to certain applicants for professional licensure whose criminal history includes a felony; clarify that Georgia’s Quality Basic Education (QBE) formula funding can be used for offenders age 22 and under who are enrolled in an approved state charter school; enact several changes to regulations governing driver’s license suspensions; and various alcohol monitoring practices.

2016 Juvenile Justice Recommendations

The Council also addressed several significant issues that have surfaced pursuant to the landmark juvenile justice legislation adopted in 2013. While juvenile reform has had many positive impacts on Georgia’s correctional system for youth, one unintended Report of the Georgia Council on Criminal Justice Reform – 2016 10 consequence has been the juvenile courts’ expanded use of secure detention for a younger population than such facilities are equipped to serve. Research shows that earlier involvement with the juvenile system leads to an increase in negative outcomes for youth, including higher recidivism levels, a greater likelihood of not graduating from high school, and future involvement with the adult correctional system. By expanding the detention of younger children and exposing such youth to the trauma correlated with such detention, Georgia is, in effect, voiding the beneficial effects of juvenile reform for this most vulnerable population.

In response, the Council recommends statutory language that would prohibit secure detention for all first-time youthful offenders aged thirteen and under, except for those charged with the most serious offenses, where a clear public safety issue is present. Secure detention in these serious cases may only be considered if indicated by the validated assessment instrument, and with judicial approval.

On another issue crucial to the safety and well being of Georgia’s youth, the Council examined the referral systems that feed the juvenile justice system – especially those in schools, which are one of the largest sources of delinquency complaints filed in juvenile courts. Given research that shows the vast majority of juveniles outgrow delinquency and criminal behavior with involvement in school and work, the Council recommends mandating the use of educational approaches to address a student’s problematic behavior in school and improving the fairness of school disciplinary proceedings. The Council also proposes the establishment of equitable standards and mandating meaningful training for school disciplinary officers and tribunal personnel. Finally, the Council recommends that school systems utilizing the services of a School Resource Officer (“SRO”) operate pursuant to an agreed upon memorandum of understanding. It is the Council’s intention that these recommendations go hand-in-glove with the work and recommendations of the Georgia Education Reform Commission.

]]>http://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/02/2016-recommendations-from-the-criminal-justice-reform-council/feed/6The 2016 State of the State Addresshttp://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/01/highlights-of-the-2016-state-of-the-state-address/
http://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/01/highlights-of-the-2016-state-of-the-state-address/#commentsThu, 21 Jan 2016 18:09:56 +0000http://georgiapolicy.org/?p=16665Gov. Nathan Deal delivered the annual State of the State address and introduced his 2017 budget recommendations last week. Here are some of […]

More support for high-demand skills training: “…over the past three years, we have identified 11 areas where a student will receive a 100 percent tuition HOPE Grant to obtain that training. These Strategic Industries Workforce Development Grants cover 140 programs, and I am recommending that we add industrial maintenance this year to that important list.”

Additional funding for Dual Enrollment: “Our Move On When Ready legislation from last year, coupled with additional funding for Dual Enrollment, has greatly accelerated the pace of many students’ educational journeys. This allows high school students to attend postsecondary institutions at no cost to them or their parents.”

Support for Computer Science and Programming: “In order to further modernize our K-12 education system, I asked the State Board of Education and the University System of Georgia to allow certain high school computer science courses to count as core courses in high school and for purposes of college admission. Both entities have agreed, and there are currently nine computer science courses that count towards a science or foreign language requirement. This will give us more early learners in a field that is and will continue to be in high demand by employers.”

Positive Results from Criminal Justice Reform: “As a result of your passing legislation to implement the recommendations of the Council in prior years, we have seen a substantial drop in our prison population as thousands of non-violent offenders are being diverted into accountability courts where they are given a second chance to receive treatments for their addictions. By converting inmates into taxpayers, and by educating and giving paroled inmates marketable skills, we will begin to reduce our rates of recidivism, which will in turn make our state safer. The same diversion is occurring in the juvenile justice system. In short, Georgia is recognized as the leading state for meaningful criminal justice reform.”

Education Funding and the Education Reform Commission: The Governor announced the reform of the QBE funding model will be delayed until 2017. In the meantime, the 2017 budget increases education funding, bringing the total three-year increase in funding to more than $1.5 billion, or nearly $900 million after accounting for changes in student population and teacher salaries.

Mandated expenditures increasing: “…our mandatory entitlement spending continues to grow through no fault of our own. Although we have seen our revenue grow, we have also seen mandated expenditures grow in the areas of health care and education, taking up ever larger segments of our overall annual budgets. In fact, the discretionary portion of the budget, which is now roughly 17 percent, continues to shrink.” The Medicaid program alone “has grown from $2.6 billion in FY2013 to $3.1 billion in FY2017, an increase of 15.7 percent.”

FY 2017 budget highlights:

The budget allocates $23.7 billion of state spending and $47.5 billion of total spending.

The budget estimates the state will collect an additional $1 billion in revenue in addition to $826 million in new revenues from the passage of the Transportation Funding Act of 2015.

The Rainy Day Fund stands at $1.4 billion and Georgia remains one of only nine states with AAA bond ratings from all three major credit-rating agencies.

The breakdown of the budget by policy area in the table below shows that just five policy areas account for 95 percent of state spending.

FY 2017 Budget By Policy Area

Education

$12,611,866,931

53%

Health Care

$5,148,145,362

22%

Public Safety

$1,924,870,977

8%

Transportation

$1,714,541,590

7%

Debt Service

$1,209,918,231

5%

Other

$1,130,065,987

5%

$23,739,409,078

Finally, in the Governor’s introduction to the 2017 budget, he included these remarks on public safety:

“The safety of Georgians is paramount. Without a true sense of security, little else matters. For this reason, we must continue to support our criminal justice reforms and other measures that will enhance safety.

“The state’s adult and juvenile justice reforms have focused on utilizing proven, community-based alternatives to sentencing. These options offer non-violent offenders a viable second chance at a productive life, while saving taxpayer dollars and reserving prison beds for hardened and career criminals Already, jail backlog has dropped several thousand to only a few hundred, and the secure population at Juvenile Justice facilities has dipped roughly 25 percent since implementation of reforms. I’m recommending $63 million in bonds to account for the hardening of our prisons, which reflects the purpose of these facilities.

“This year we continue the push for community-based solutions by proposing the addition of new accountability courts while also increasing existing capacity. These courts include drug, veterans, mental health, family and DUI courts, and they offer evidence-based programs that rehabilitate offenders and reduce the percentage that wind up back in the system. These courts are changing lives. My budget would also increase the grant providing incentives to use appropriate community alternatives on the juvenile side. Between accountability courts and the juvenile incentive grant, I am recommending an additional $3.8 million in funding for FY 2017.

“A level playing field arising from a quality education and job opportunities can lead to renewed hope and a more productive life. In calendar year 2015, the Department of Corrections recorded over 20 charter high school graduates. Following the success at Lee Arrrendale State Prison, the current charter school operations at Burruss began in August by serving young males with strong potential to earn their diploma, and we hope to see an even greater number of graduates going forward. Prior to these efforts, no one who was incarcerated could earn their high school diploma while in prison. [Emphasis added.] In addition, the inmate welding program at Walker State Prison has seen a significant number of completions; this program increases the employability of offenders upon release. This cycle, I am recommending additional funding to continue supporting the re-entry of released offenders back into society. The funded education and vocational initiatives include everything from additional academic and training assistance at four state prisons to continued support for charter high schools in prisons to the expansion of GED Fast Track to all transition centers. All told, these changes would account for an additional $4.3 million in fiscal year 2017. My budget recomendations would also expand the GED Fast Track to county prisons, where a need exists. For this purpose, funding in FY 2017 would go toward providing an incentive for county correctional facilities to help graduate inmates from GED and vocational programs.”

]]>http://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/01/highlights-of-the-2016-state-of-the-state-address/feed/1Higher Education Funding and Tuition: How Does Georgia Compare?http://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/01/higher-education-funding-and-tuition-how-does-georgia-compare/
http://www.georgiapolicy.org/2016/01/higher-education-funding-and-tuition-how-does-georgia-compare/#commentsTue, 19 Jan 2016 14:55:49 +0000http://georgiapolicy.org/?p=16649The cost of higher education is skyrocketing across the nation, including in Georgia. But how does Georgia compare to other states? […]

The cost of higher education is skyrocketing across the nation, including in Georgia. But how does Georgia compare to other states?

The average amount of annual in-state tuition and fees at Georgia’s public universities increased by more than 31 percent over the last five years (a greater increase than all but one state). The average amount of tuition and fees, $8,447, ranks below the national average at 31st. Net tuition revenue per FTE (tuition after scholarships and other grants) is $4,468, ranking Georgia 41st highest in the nation.

State funding per student is $7,297, which ranks 14th highest in the nation.